Why does everyone want the Pac-12 to die? It's gonna hurt college athletics even more. And even if the B12 does rebound they still won't make as much money as compared to the B1G or SEC.

The theory pushed by more credible sources is that Kevin Warren pushed all 4 of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford, and that the presidents didn’t want Stanford and Cal. This supposedly ended up halting expansion altogether and preventing Oregon and Washington from being added.

There's no source (other than Flug) that claims that Warren's departure helps Cal and Stanford's odds. The argument is that Warren't departure helps Oregon and Washington's odds.

(04-09-2023 01:26 PM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  Why does everyone want the Pac-12 to die? It's gonna hurt college athletics even more. And even if the B12 does rebound they still won't make as much money as compared to the B1G or SEC.

The top PAC schools playing in BIG is much better for college football than having them get left behind in PAC

They’ve been increasingly forgotten and fading the last decade

Tap into the PAC vs BIG tradition, exporting these brands to the more passionate fans of Midwest and east, getting better time slots and exposure. A national product rather than the poor business model of catering to western markets only

Most of the leftovers, likely in Big 12, will have never made as much as the better schools of BIG or SEC…that’s why they’re leftovers. It won’t impact their spot in hierarchy of college football much. If anything fans of these lesser schools have a better chance than ever of making postseason, now that their former conference premier programs are gone

(04-09-2023 01:08 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 12:54 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 08:54 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-08-2023 06:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-08-2023 05:46 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  Well he's not saying that expansion is imminent, all he said was that Warren was what put the breaks on further expansion. The schools in the B1G did not trust the man and it shouldn't be that surprising if true, look how fast he's leaving the conference.

As far as credibility is concerned, take everything he says with a healthy dose of skepticism. That said, I would put him above numerous others people like to post stories about here.

Well, I don’t see much economic incentive. UO and UW’s TV rating is well below the BIG average. Their attendance is not much better than the BIG average. And it’s not like they own huge market like NY or LA.

Unless Amazon or another network is willing to pay a lot of money…

The BIG and networks aren’t evaluating Oregon and UW on how they pull playing in PAC

Oregon vs OSU was a top-10 rated regular season game. Beating nearly all BIG vs BIG game

The top PAC brands are greatly devalued playing in PAC

Is the Big 10 bump enough to get added? Potentially

It’s likely high enough to justify if Amazon or ESPN pay up to create late night or help with ND

Yes UO’s and UW’s rating would increase in the BIG. But it’s not going to be much higher than the BIG average if not lower. Look at Rutger’s and UMCP ratings.

You’re comparing Oregon to Rutgers?

Come on now

So how much did joining the B10 help Rutgers in terms of rating and attendance? What about UMCP and Neb?

Yes more B10 fans would watch Oregon and Washington. But it’s also entirely possible UO and UW would lose a lot more games in the B10 and subsequently become less irrelevant and draw less eyeballs.

(04-09-2023 01:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  So how much did joining the B10 help Rutgers in terms of rating and attendance? What about UMCP and Neb?

Yes more B10 fans would watch Oregon and Washington. But it’s also entirely possible UO and UW would lose a lot more games in the B10 and subsequently become less irrelevant and draw less eyeballs.

So if/when the ACC begins to get picked part by the P2 and VT gets an invite from the SEC, should the Hokies instead opt for Conference #3 — with the accompanying financial shortfall — in order to have a better chance to win more games?

The OP goes against what Matt posted directly from his sources in The Big Ten. I trust Matt more than someone throwing stuff out to see if it sticks.

(04-09-2023 01:42 PM)Poster Wrote:  The theory pushed by more credible sources is that Kevin Warren pushed all 4 of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford, and that the presidents didn’t want Stanford and Cal. This supposedly ended up halting expansion altogether and preventing Oregon and Washington from being added.

There's no source (other than Flug) that claims that Warren's departure helps Cal and Stanford's odds. The argument is that Warren't departure helps Oregon and Washington's odds.

Fluguar always said Stanford was the 5th, tied with Notre Dame. He said he heard nothing about Cal.

I do agree there is more opposition than anti-Warren sentiment. But it was around the issues of digestion (two at a time is preferred) and having the increased revenue to justify it. But leaving partners of high value stranded due to a Pac-12 collapse changes the equation; meaning the opposition might be a lot less in that scenario, combined with a willingness of the schools to take less money and the stepping up of a provider (Comcast/Peacock or Amazon or even ESPN) for a Friday night game package that would only need a $100M or so, instead of the $200M they required last summer to make the numbers work. But it can't just be shunting 12 games onto BTN, it must be an exposure value to get the schools worried they'd lose a broadcast game or two (e.g., Rutgers, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, Maryland, et al). Even begging is not enough, that extra package is required.

(04-09-2023 02:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The OP goes against what Matt posted directly from his sources in The Big Ten. I trust Matt more than someone throwing stuff out to see if it sticks.

Reminds me of last spring. How did that turn out?

(04-09-2023 01:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:08 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 12:54 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 08:54 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-08-2023 06:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Well, I don’t see much economic incentive. UO and UW’s TV rating is well below the BIG average. Their attendance is not much better than the BIG average. And it’s not like they own huge market like NY or LA.

Unless Amazon or another network is willing to pay a lot of money…

The BIG and networks aren’t evaluating Oregon and UW on how they pull playing in PAC

Oregon vs OSU was a top-10 rated regular season game. Beating nearly all BIG vs BIG game

The top PAC brands are greatly devalued playing in PAC

Is the Big 10 bump enough to get added? Potentially

It’s likely high enough to justify if Amazon or ESPN pay up to create late night or help with ND

Yes UO’s and UW’s rating would increase in the BIG. But it’s not going to be much higher than the BIG average if not lower. Look at Rutger’s and UMCP ratings.

You’re comparing Oregon to Rutgers?

Come on now

So how much did joining the B10 help Rutgers in terms of rating and attendance? What about UMCP and Neb?

Yes more B10 fans would watch Oregon and Washington. But it’s also entirely possible UO and UW would lose a lot more games in the B10 and subsequently become less irrelevant and draw less eyeballs.

Rutgers isn’t Oregon. Just stop with that.

Nebraska has fallen off since joining BIG. They still draw well.

(04-09-2023 02:49 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  So how much did joining the B10 help Rutgers in terms of rating and attendance? What about UMCP and Neb?

Yes more B10 fans would watch Oregon and Washington. But it’s also entirely possible UO and UW would lose a lot more games in the B10 and subsequently become less irrelevant and draw less eyeballs.

So if/when the ACC begins to get picked part by the P2 and VT gets an invite from the SEC, should the Hokies instead opt for Conference #3 — with the accompanying financial shortfall — in order to have a better chance to win more games?

That’s not the point. The SEC has to invite first, right? The SEC / the BIG are in a strong position and can be choosy. Their 16 team setup is good for 3-6-6. They don’t invite an OK school hoping that school’s rating would skyrocket in the BIG/SEC.

Any new school should bring in a very large amount of revenue to raise the average payout. How many non P2 schools are out there better than the average BIG / SEC school? And if you look at the numbers, Tenn is kinda average for SEC and Iowa is an average for B12. So give me a list of non P2 schools much better than Tenn/Iowa.

ND? Sure.
FSU? Maybe.
UO/UW? Questionable
VT? Probably no

(04-09-2023 03:24 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:08 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 12:54 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 08:54 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  The BIG and networks aren’t evaluating Oregon and UW on how they pull playing in PAC

Oregon vs OSU was a top-10 rated regular season game. Beating nearly all BIG vs BIG game

The top PAC brands are greatly devalued playing in PAC

Is the Big 10 bump enough to get added? Potentially

It’s likely high enough to justify if Amazon or ESPN pay up to create late night or help with ND

Yes UO’s and UW’s rating would increase in the BIG. But it’s not going to be much higher than the BIG average if not lower. Look at Rutger’s and UMCP ratings.

You’re comparing Oregon to Rutgers?

Come on now

So how much did joining the B10 help Rutgers in terms of rating and attendance? What about UMCP and Neb?

Yes more B10 fans would watch Oregon and Washington. But it’s also entirely possible UO and UW would lose a lot more games in the B10 and subsequently become less irrelevant and draw less eyeballs.

Rutgers isn’t Oregon. Just stop with that.

Nebraska has fallen off since joining BIG. They still draw well.

Nebraska doesn’t draw better than when it was in the B12. Why should the BIG offer an invitation to UO/UW if their numbers are not up to the BIG average and there’s no guarantee that their numbers would increase?

(04-08-2023 08:11 PM)Alanda Wrote:  If true then confirms what I was guessing.

(04-08-2023 05:54 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Flug is just trying to put an opposite spin on this thing.
https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/164...57728?s=20

I wouldn't say it's the opposite. Warren wanted to expand more and they opposed it because it's what Warren wanted not because it didn't necessarily make sense. If Warren was on great terms with the Presidents/ADs (e.g. handling the COVID season differently), then it likely goes through as Warren was planning.

At the very least, the B1G doesn't want to expand west until they see how this round of expansion goes. It isn't like UW or UO is going anywhere so there is no rush.

(04-09-2023 03:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:42 PM)Poster Wrote:  The theory pushed by more credible sources is that Kevin Warren pushed all 4 of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford, and that the presidents didn’t want Stanford and Cal. This supposedly ended up halting expansion altogether and preventing Oregon and Washington from being added.

There's no source (other than Flug) that claims that Warren's departure helps Cal and Stanford's odds. The argument is that Warren't departure helps Oregon and Washington's odds.

Fluguar always said Stanford was the 5th, tied with Notre Dame. He said he heard nothing about Cal.

I do agree there is more opposition than anti-Warren sentiment. But it was around the issues of digestion (two at a time is preferred) and having the increased revenue to justify it. But leaving partners of high value stranded due to a Pac-12 collapse changes the equation; meaning the opposition might be a lot less in that scenario, combined with a willingness of the schools to take less money and the stepping up of a provider (Comcast/Peacock or Amazon or even ESPN) for a Friday night game package that would only need a $100M or so, instead of the $200M they required last summer to make the numbers work. But it can't just be shunting 12 games onto BTN, it must be an exposure value to get the schools worried they'd lose a broadcast game or two (e.g., Rutgers, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, Maryland, et al). Even begging is not enough, that extra package is required.

That's why I wonder if the B1G goes to ESPN asking for a Friday night ABC or ESPN game as part of a package if Oregon and Washington are added and the rest go to NBC in the 2:30 timeslot when ND is away. In addition to additional money (expansion won't happen if there isn't a revenue increase), the lesser value B1G schools get more chances of exposure on linear networks, and ESPN would get up to 60 games for basketball.

(04-09-2023 03:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 03:24 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:08 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 12:54 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Yes UO’s and UW’s rating would increase in the BIG. But it’s not going to be much higher than the BIG average if not lower. Look at Rutger’s and UMCP ratings.

You’re comparing Oregon to Rutgers?

Come on now

So how much did joining the B10 help Rutgers in terms of rating and attendance? What about UMCP and Neb?

Yes more B10 fans would watch Oregon and Washington. But it’s also entirely possible UO and UW would lose a lot more games in the B10 and subsequently become less irrelevant and draw less eyeballs.

Rutgers isn’t Oregon. Just stop with that.

Nebraska has fallen off since joining BIG. They still draw well.

Nebraska doesn’t draw better than when it was in the B12. Why should the BIG offer an invitation to UO/UW if their numbers are not up to the BIG average and there’s no guarantee that their numbers would increase?

Nebraska was in the prime of the Big 12. Not the PAC getting treated like smut

You mentioned decay from losing. Nebraska is losing and still valuable

(04-09-2023 06:47 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 03:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:42 PM)Poster Wrote:  The theory pushed by more credible sources is that Kevin Warren pushed all 4 of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford, and that the presidents didn’t want Stanford and Cal. This supposedly ended up halting expansion altogether and preventing Oregon and Washington from being added.

There's no source (other than Flug) that claims that Warren's departure helps Cal and Stanford's odds. The argument is that Warren't departure helps Oregon and Washington's odds.

Fluguar always said Stanford was the 5th, tied with Notre Dame. He said he heard nothing about Cal.

I do agree there is more opposition than anti-Warren sentiment. But it was around the issues of digestion (two at a time is preferred) and having the increased revenue to justify it. But leaving partners of high value stranded due to a Pac-12 collapse changes the equation; meaning the opposition might be a lot less in that scenario, combined with a willingness of the schools to take less money and the stepping up of a provider (Comcast/Peacock or Amazon or even ESPN) for a Friday night game package that would only need a $100M or so, instead of the $200M they required last summer to make the numbers work. But it can't just be shunting 12 games onto BTN, it must be an exposure value to get the schools worried they'd lose a broadcast game or two (e.g., Rutgers, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, Maryland, et al). Even begging is not enough, that extra package is required.

That's why I wonder if the B1G goes to ESPN asking for a Friday night ABC or ESPN game as part of a package if Oregon and Washington are added and the rest go to NBC in the 2:30 timeslot when ND is away. In addition to additional money (expansion won't happen if there isn't a revenue increase), the lesser value B1G schools get more chances of exposure on linear networks, and ESPN would get up to 60 games for basketball.

If expansion won't happen if there isn't a revenue increase then we might as well shut this forum down, because there are no whales big enough left on the board. The B1G's and SEC's contracts are high enough that virtually any add but Notre Dame would either be neutral or almost surely dilutive. And nobody the other three conferences would want would want to leave. If PAC schools want to leave for the Big 12 they won't increase either the B12s revenue or the ACC's.

(04-09-2023 12:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 08:06 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2023 05:35 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Is Flug credible? A 24 team conference doesn’t seem very likely.

Can you expound on this?

Two things.

1. Check the TV ratings and football attendance. How many non P2 teams have numbers higher than (or at least close to) the P2 average?

2. Tell me how football and basketball scheduling would work for a 24 team league.

1. There'll likely be a few academic-minded exceptions. But the P2 "call-ups" from the Pac and ACC will be those conferences' biggest brands with the largest fan bases and typically the most success in at least one of the two revenue sports.

2. A nine-game football conference schedule for a 24-team league works nicely with a 2/7 schedule over a six-year cycle. We'll use Michigan as example. The Wolverines would play Ohio State and Michigan State every season and do home-and-homes with other 21 teams during those six seasons. Hadn't thought as much about basketball, but that certainly could be flexible - maybe even using a divisional format

(04-09-2023 07:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 06:47 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 03:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:42 PM)Poster Wrote:  The theory pushed by more credible sources is that Kevin Warren pushed all 4 of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford, and that the presidents didn’t want Stanford and Cal. This supposedly ended up halting expansion altogether and preventing Oregon and Washington from being added.

There's no source (other than Flug) that claims that Warren's departure helps Cal and Stanford's odds. The argument is that Warren't departure helps Oregon and Washington's odds.

Fluguar always said Stanford was the 5th, tied with Notre Dame. He said he heard nothing about Cal.

I do agree there is more opposition than anti-Warren sentiment. But it was around the issues of digestion (two at a time is preferred) and having the increased revenue to justify it. But leaving partners of high value stranded due to a Pac-12 collapse changes the equation; meaning the opposition might be a lot less in that scenario, combined with a willingness of the schools to take less money and the stepping up of a provider (Comcast/Peacock or Amazon or even ESPN) for a Friday night game package that would only need a $100M or so, instead of the $200M they required last summer to make the numbers work. But it can't just be shunting 12 games onto BTN, it must be an exposure value to get the schools worried they'd lose a broadcast game or two (e.g., Rutgers, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, Maryland, et al). Even begging is not enough, that extra package is required.

That's why I wonder if the B1G goes to ESPN asking for a Friday night ABC or ESPN game as part of a package if Oregon and Washington are added and the rest go to NBC in the 2:30 timeslot when ND is away. In addition to additional money (expansion won't happen if there isn't a revenue increase), the lesser value B1G schools get more chances of exposure on linear networks, and ESPN would get up to 60 games for basketball.

If expansion won't happen if there isn't a revenue increase then we might as well shut this forum down, because there are no whales big enough left on the board. The B1G's and SEC's contracts are high enough that virtually any add but Notre Dame would either be neutral or almost surely dilutive. And nobody the other three conferences would want would want to leave. If PAC schools want to leave for the Big 12 they won't increase either the B12s revenue or the ACC's.

1. None of you are looking at the value of these schools within the correct context. It's not about what the schools have earned within their current contexts. It's about what markets they add to the new groupings, what reach they extend, and what content value they add to the potential match ups in their new associations.

Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, a Virginia school all add markets. Florida State adds markets to the Big 10 and market dominance to the SEC. Should Florida State head to the SEC Miami will have value to the Big 10, and could be worth SEC interest to keep the Big 10 totally out of the Florida markets. Kansas has value in market reach in another season.

2. The real money is to be made from the CFP expansion (about 18 million per school in an upper tier) and 2.25 x old tourney creds, (paid annually, and not spread out over 6 years).

The money is already there.

3. The option briefly considered was one Conference of about 24 to 30 schools paid 120 million to 150 million each and nobody else in the upper tier. The networks are holding off on that to see if a more inclusive format (think 72) can work.

4. I don't know if smaller shares will be accepted by some or not. My assumption, and it is one, is that the 3rd conference, perhaps 3rd and 4th conferences will be paid less for football, more for basketball and will remain competitive as a result. We'll see.

But I fully expect the Big 10 to add at least 4 more and for the SEC to likely follow suit.

Whether there is a Big 12 of 20 or more, or a Big 12 of 16 full members with more all but football schools, and an ACC comported the same way remains to be seen.

(04-09-2023 01:08 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This board isn't prepared to hear why it was Smith at Ohio State (and Michigan) who was the one who was blocking further expansion at the time.

Gene Smith, along with every other AD in the Big Ten, has almost no say in this decision whatsoever. Half of them found out the league was adding USC and UCLA like, 72 hours before we all did.

I honestly don't know what Johnson (Ohio State's president at the time) felt about expansion. I've never been able to get a directly sourced answer. But I do know that the loudest voices against expanding beyond 16 were coming from the less wealthy Big Ten schools, not the more wealthy.

Very interesting.

This would seem to align with the rumors that some schools were concerned about the idea that adding more schools would mean less potency of their (internal) votes.

It makes sense that the smaller schools would be the ones most concerned about that.

I seen people arguing about how adding Oregon and Washington increase travel and was curious how much it would increase it if at all. This was done from an Ohio State perspective. The pairings for the rivalries are what would appear to be likely given to us, but could be wrong. The 10 year average includes home games, which would be 0 Miles, and is for 90-100 games, but is calculated as a 1 way trip.

Based on my calculations (may not be perfect), if OSU is paired with USC for an annual game in the 3-6/6 format, I have no issue adding Oregon and Washington as additional travel would be similar to a trip to Wisconsin. For other schools like Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, and Illinois, who will likely play each other annually, travel would probably be a more significant increase and would probably desire more exposure or money to counter additional travel costs. Although it is worth noting that they are already receiving a big bump in revenue.

Ohio State Football Travel: (A) (B) ©
Michigan - 183 Miles (915) (915) (915)
Indiana - 224 Miles (560) (448) (560)
Purdue - 238 Miles (595) (476) (595)
Michigan St. - 247 Miles (617.5) (1235/494) (1235/617.5)
Illinois - 295 Miles (737.5) (590) (737.5)
Penn St. - 327 Miles (1635) (1635) (1635)
Northwestern - 341 Miles (852.5) (682) (852.5)
Maryland - 401 Miles (1002.5) (802/2005) (1002.5/2005)
Wisconsin - 467 Miles (1167.5) (934) (1167.5)
Rutgers - 528 Miles (1320) (1056) (1320)
Iowa - 537 Miles (1342.5) (1074) (1342.5)
Minnesota - 726 Miles (1815) (1452) (1815)
Nebraska - 814 Miles (2035) (1628) (2035)
USC - 2248 Miles (11240) (8992) (5620)
UCLA - 2258 Miles (5645) (4516) (5645)
Washington - 2390 Miles (...) (4780) (5975)
Oregon - 2437 Miles (...) (4874) (6092.5)

A. 9 games, 16 Teams: 3-6/6
- 10 year Aver.: 351.78 Mi/Gm
TTUN, PSU, USC annual
- 10 year Aver.: 296.19 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual
- 10 year Aver.: 311.61 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual

B. 9 games:
3 teams annual, 1 team 4 of 5 years, 13 teams H&H every 5 years
- 10 Year Aver.: 400.99 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual, USC 4 of 5
- 10 Year Aver.: 406.12 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual, USC 4 of 5

C. 10 games, 18 Teams: 3-7/7
- 10 Year Aver.: 387.25 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual
- 10 Year Aver.: 391.10 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual

(04-09-2023 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 07:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 06:47 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 03:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:42 PM)Poster Wrote:  The theory pushed by more credible sources is that Kevin Warren pushed all 4 of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford, and that the presidents didn’t want Stanford and Cal. This supposedly ended up halting expansion altogether and preventing Oregon and Washington from being added.

There's no source (other than Flug) that claims that Warren's departure helps Cal and Stanford's odds. The argument is that Warren't departure helps Oregon and Washington's odds.

Fluguar always said Stanford was the 5th, tied with Notre Dame. He said he heard nothing about Cal.

I do agree there is more opposition than anti-Warren sentiment. But it was around the issues of digestion (two at a time is preferred) and having the increased revenue to justify it. But leaving partners of high value stranded due to a Pac-12 collapse changes the equation; meaning the opposition might be a lot less in that scenario, combined with a willingness of the schools to take less money and the stepping up of a provider (Comcast/Peacock or Amazon or even ESPN) for a Friday night game package that would only need a $100M or so, instead of the $200M they required last summer to make the numbers work. But it can't just be shunting 12 games onto BTN, it must be an exposure value to get the schools worried they'd lose a broadcast game or two (e.g., Rutgers, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, Maryland, et al). Even begging is not enough, that extra package is required.

That's why I wonder if the B1G goes to ESPN asking for a Friday night ABC or ESPN game as part of a package if Oregon and Washington are added and the rest go to NBC in the 2:30 timeslot when ND is away. In addition to additional money (expansion won't happen if there isn't a revenue increase), the lesser value B1G schools get more chances of exposure on linear networks, and ESPN would get up to 60 games for basketball.

If expansion won't happen if there isn't a revenue increase then we might as well shut this forum down, because there are no whales big enough left on the board. The B1G's and SEC's contracts are high enough that virtually any add but Notre Dame would either be neutral or almost surely dilutive. And nobody the other three conferences would want would want to leave. If PAC schools want to leave for the Big 12 they won't increase either the B12s revenue or the ACC's.

1. None of you are looking at the value of these schools within the correct context. It's not about what the schools have earned within their current contexts. It's about what markets they add to the new groupings, what reach they extend, and what content value they add to the potential match ups in their new associations.

Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, a Virginia school all add markets. Florida State adds markets to the Big 10 and market dominance to the SEC. Should Florida State head to the SEC Miami will have value to the Big 10, and could be worth SEC interest to keep the Big 10 totally out of the Florida markets. Kansas has value in market reach in another season.

2. The real money is to be made from the CFP expansion (about 18 million per school in an upper tier) and 2.25 x old tourney creds, (paid annually, and not spread out over 6 years).

The money is already there.

3. The option briefly considered was one Conference of about 24 to 30 schools paid 120 million to 150 million each and nobody else in the upper tier. The networks are holding off on that to see if a more inclusive format (think 72) can work.

4. I don't know if smaller shares will be accepted by some or not. My assumption, and it is one, is that the 3rd conference, perhaps 3rd and 4th conferences will be paid less for football, more for basketball and will remain competitive as a result. We'll see.

But I fully expect the Big 10 to add at least 4 more and for the SEC to likely follow suit.

Whether there is a Big 12 of 20 or more, or a Big 12 of 16 full members with more all but football schools, and an ACC comported the same way remains to be seen.

Well said as usual. I am continually surprised as to why #1 eludes otherwise knowledgeable folks.